You didn't dispute their science, did you? Are you pretending this was reviewed by outside scientists who aren't card carrying vegan zealots...or even by non contributors to the paper they've presented? Do you know who funded it, since that does matter? Any meat producers among them?
You know they neglected to include a list of possible conflicts of interest the authors had, too. Could that be because the vast majority made/make their living selling veganism in one way or another?

I gave specific points of contention with specific details of eat lancet including it's scientific validity, with specific data you failed to address at all.

I'm just pointing out the deficiencies in your movement's new attempt at science...it may have some good points none the less.

I'm much less concerned with the messenger than the science. Veganism pushes out these new claims so often that it takes an army to keep up with debunking them, it's no surprise some soldiers are less than perfect, I don't know these two enough to care....but do you contradict their article's scientific points, ignoring the authors likely bias?

All that said, I don't disagree that red meat once a week is a decent limit, or that less sugar and processed grain would be even more beneficial to average people's health (not everyone)...and that's far from suggesting veganism...but those three suggestions seem to be the main takeaways from the synopsis I've read, but the devil is in the details, which seem to need serious work.

Likely because the messenger is well known for lying about the science.

If his claims were true, established vegans would never get cancer or heart disease and meat eaters would all have cancer.

You're focusing on the messenger, and ignoring the science again.

Feel free to look up the study yourself, they make no effort to hide it, and it lists the journal it's from in the corner.

The conclusion is the same though, even if Hitler was talking about this study, the results wouldn't change. Vegan diets based on whole plant foods protect and reverse cancers. (and heart-disease.)

Adding video to channels (Learn) - requested by messenger.

Hannah put on a good show with a big heart, but it made me sad to see her indict her own comedy for perpetuating "trauma."

Laughter is how we identify inappropriate behavior (what she called "trauma"), acknowledge that it has no place in good society, and (most of all) embrace the messenger. Good comedy is medicine.

It's right in the Terms of Service that you agree to Instant Messenger listening to audio and possibly the camera.

They don't hide it - You agree to let them when you use the app.

He did no such thing. That's never been the point, it's the obvious red herring, oh fishy one. Now, holding a confederate flag.......

Ratings and ticket sales....up.
The idea you might go to a game and not have to deal with a crazed Trump fan screaming in your face seems to be a winner.

When your message will be heard is always the wrong time for those that don't want to listen. If you liked the message or the messenger, you would love the method and moment.
Sports has historically often been about politics.

Trump has now given the protest against police brutality the attention, and momentum it deserves....he may have done some good.....accidentally....by opposing it. One more win, he's on a roll.

Please refrain from personal attacks. Attack the message not the messenger.

Thanks

...and welcome to the sift

Funny, but flawed it's own way.

Let me preface this commentary by saying I am not in any organized religion. I go back and forth in believing in God and also not being able to find proof he exists, basically an agnostic theist. So this is not in any way an attempt to 'prove' anything other than that I disagree with the way the video is portraying the biblical tale. I also know there are far more egregious examples than this story of God as an uncaring, flawed being with an uncertain temperament.

First, this story is one of the 'go to' stories that most atheists or anti-religion people look to for a clear example of the 'wrongness' of the bible or God. The reason is, if you don't take anything else into context, this story is massively damning! What god would call for a mass genocide out of the blue, right? Certainly not one people consider to be good!

But, if we look at the context of the bible in the Old Testament, we see that this is not wholly out of line for the character shown of God. If we take the statements of the bible as literal, then God has already shown he will destroy any threat to those he considers his 'chosen people'; even those who are/were part of that group.

In this case, the Amalekites were descendants of Esau. Esau was the brother of Jacob (later named Israel) and was supposed to inherit the blessing of his father, as well as command over the 'chosen people' of God. Esau was of rough nature and was a hunter. Once he was starving and went to Jacob, who tended the fields (sort of the Cain and Abel bit all over again), begging him for a bowl of lentil soup. Jacob told him that he would give him the bowl if Esau would pass his birthright (blessing and command) over to Jacob, since obviously Jacob was more able to care for his people than a solitary hunter. Esau agreed, but never really meant it, he was just hungry and was willing to say whatever he needed to so as to get that soup.

Jacob was dead serious though, so he took the birthright and became Israel, the leader of God's chosen. Esau was livid and swore to murder Jacob, who fled. Esau never got the birthright back, but he did sire the people who became the Amalekites, who in turn swore vengeance on Israel-ites.

This becomes important as time goes on, because basically every single time the groups encountered one another, the Israelites tried to be peaceful but the Amalekites always attacked.

By the time Saul was king, God chose to have him go and destroy the Amalekites, deeming them beyond saving. As he had told Moses during the first Amalekite attacks, he had Samuel tell Saul to blot their memory from history, wiping them out completely. Saul chose not to do this, sparing their king and some animals. Because of this, God replaced Saul with David.

So, now we come to the main part of the discussion. Like I said, this story is used quite often to show the capricious nature of God. However, like I said, it uses the story out of context. Now that we have the 'historical' description of the origin and ongoing nature of the conflict, we can put it into context.

If you are going to dissect the nature of 'God' as shown in the Old Testament, you have to look at the information given to show that nature. The bible says he is all-knowing, but it also says that he gave mankind free will. If you look on God as more of a creature running a simulation, he hopes that humanity will come to follow his rules of their own accord, even though he knows many will not. He chooses Israel and his descendants to be his 'messengers' to the other people that have chosen not to follow his rules, basically they are his missionaries that he hopes will lead his simulation to the proper conclusion.

Any group or race that tries to eradicate his messengers is a threat to his simulation, so he eventually will deal with them harshly. Sodom and Gomorrah, The Great Flood, and other examples of God deciding that he needs to protect his 'messengers' and clear off the playing board. In the case of the Amalekites, by this time period mentioned in the story, we are talking about generations of them trying to destroy the Israelites. So, God tells Samuel to tell Saul that they must be wiped from the playing board. Saul exercises his free will, therefore David enters the picture.

If you look at free will and God's choice of his messengers, as well as his protection of them, you get this story situation. By telling Saul to wipe them out, God is saying that he has tried to look the other way, but the Amalekites will never stop as long as they exist. Therefore they must be dealt with in a manner that will prevent them from rising as a people in the future and attempting harm to his messengers again.

It still doesn't paint God in a perfect light, but makes him more of a tinkerer. He keeps creating flawed inventions that choose to follow their own path and not his. The sad thing is, if you assume that he is all knowing, he knows this is going to be the end result. He creates angels and they turn on him. He creates humans and they turn on him. Then he creates Jesus, a combination of god and human, who doesn't turn on him. It is almost like he decides to create a Hero unit that can show the other simulations an easier path to winning.

Realistically and analytically, I know it doesn't make perfect sense. That is why I have my struggles with wanting to believe and then not being able to logically. If you choose to look at God as being a flawed creature (again, assuming that you believe he exists), the whole thing sort of makes more sense. In any case, we all have our own opinions and beliefs. I hope that my wordy post has explained how I try to work through mine.

Tags for this video have been changed from 'Cat, Prodigy, Smack My Bitch Up, Superchunk, Crossed Wires' to 'Cat, Prodigy, Smack My Bitch Up, Superchunk, Crossed Wires, camera, collar, neck' - edited by messenger

And how did Breitbart respond?

By attacking the messenger

So there are so many things wrong with those fucking nazi assholes stupid argument, I don't know where to start.

Let's see:
sexism? check! She's just a pretty girl....
Ad hominem? check!
Being completely wrong about climate change? check!

oh and my favourite part... they attempted to coin a new logical fallacy... in their words "argumentum ad puellam pulchram. (aka the Argument from a Pretty Girl)".

Except the fucking morons can't even get the latin right.

"Argumentum ad" is arguing TO not FROM, i.e. they are attacking a "pretty girl", not being attacked by.

They inadvertently exposed their own fallacy while trying to make up a new one.

Morons....

Adding video to channels (Happy) - requested by messenger.

Moving this video to messenger's personal queue. It failed to receive enough votes to get sifted up to the front page within 2 days.

Answer #1: I don't know what makes you a douchebag. I don't think "speaking out against" anything makes someone a douchebag. Telling me I'm an addict, a murderer, a RAPIST because I live and eat the way mankind has since before we made pictograms on cave walls? That's douchey. Trying to make your point by quoting people is no more effective than any other religious nut standing on a soap box.

Answer#2: Anyone can make a point by using hyperbole and extreme cases. Would I get pissed off if someone was using human toddlers, locked in black rooms, as a food source? Please. You do realize the issue between my view on food, and your view on food, is a mere distinction between what you and I consider sentience?

I'm against corporate food production. Corporations have a long and rich history of fucking humans over, I can only guess what they do to animals. I am vehemently opposed to unnecessary pain and suffering in any creature. Except pedophiles, rapists, Republicans, and those guys who flip you the bird when THEY have cut YOU off. We can do medical testing on them, no problem.

I guess you just will never understand, I don't particularly disagree with the message, just the messenger.

You can be described as "holier than thou", your arguments come from your feelings of elitism, superiority. Showing us how misguided and base we are. It's the reason why theists will never listen to Dawkins or Hitchens. (Conversely why atheists don't listen to theists either, truth be told.) They talk down to them as if they were idiots. They might BE idiots, but no one ever likes being called one.

You attack us and wonder why we get pissed off. THAT'S why you're a douchebag.

Elie Wiesel was talking about you, not us. We don't go around attacking vegans. We only react to their attacks on us. You are the oppressor here, the tormentor. I was fine before you started the name calling.

Price of Persia made a large profit, but would you say it was a good movie? RE movies have done well, but I would say you would find most critics panned them badly. They certainly were not really related to the early RE games, other than biomod creatures and zombies. I wouldn't put the RE movies in the exact same category as Street Fighter, they aren't THAT bad.

I would also say that Milla had somewhat of a fanbase simply from the Fifth Element, Dazed and Confused, Zoolander, and The Messenger. I wouldn't say huge, but I was a fan of hers and I suffered through the first couple of RE movies simply because she was the female lead.

As far as games based on movie franchises, I would say mainly only Star Wars and LotR games have been really successful, although an argument could be made for the Lego games (Harry Potter, Batman, etc). There are some others that have been decent, but nothing spectacular I can recall off the top of my head.

As far as the worst conversion from game to movie, I would say it's a 3-way tie between Doom, Wing Commander, and Street Fighter.